A democracy functions properly when the people may access government files to assess officials’ actions and hold them accountable. Yet the people lost their power to check the government’s surveillance rights Monday when the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review gave the Justice Department exactly what it wanted. And there’s no going back.
The review court overruled the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act Court’s May decision that kept the Justice Department’s intelligence and criminal arms separate. Before Monday, applications for criminal warrants had to declare “probable cause” to obtain information. This ensured Fourth Amendment proscriptions against intrusive searches. Intelligence surveillance laws, in contrast, require showing only probable cause that the subject is the agent of a foreign power.
The May ruling said the government had gone too far in interpreting the law to allow broad information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence officials.
Civil liberties groups are up in arms, saying they will try to intervene as a party. Yet their position is doubtful since the Justice Department was the only party involved in the review court hearing. Therefore, an appeal would have to come from within the department or a head government office. And John Ashcroft won’t allow that.
Ashcroft calls the court’s ruling a “victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people.” Ed Board believes it is a loss.
The barriers that kept investigators from gaining immediate access to citizen information were put there with purpose. Yes, citizens want to be safe. But innocent until proven guilty still applies, as should probable cause. No one – not even the attorney general – should be able to screen e-mails or view bank statements without a significant reason. And that reason must be validated by an objective authority.
Our system is based on checks and balances, and this ruling hits the system twice. The checks within the JD are rapidly disappearing, and the people have no power to contest the ruling.
The review court even admitted to its decision encroaching on the law in its ruling.
“We think the procedures and government showing required under the FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close,” it said.
Come close? A court’s duty is to uphold the law – not come close.
Only by ensuring people protection against unreasonable searches and seizures could an act of this sort possibly succeed.
Telescreens already abound. Laptops, cell phones and credit cards are not mere objects or technological conveniences.
More people are watching you, and if John Ashcroft is lucky, clearings in the woods will soon be the only place you can speak freely.
